April 23, 2011

What was intended as a satirical thriller has now fuelled conspiracy theorists' claim that the Moon landings were staged for the cameras. At the time Capricorn One was released, this was a wry and cheeky premise. That anyone now believes those incredible achievements were all a fake is more incredible than the Moon missions themselves.

Three astronauts are about to take off for a mission to Mars when the project leader hauls them out of the command capsule and whisks them away to a secret location. The life support system is faulty and the project has no hope of being successful. Unless the astronauts all agree to fake the broadcasts from a mock-up capsule and a huge studio set of the Mars planet surface...

The central premise of a large-scale cover-up is played deadly seriously, but the sub-plot of an investigative journalist (Elliott Gould) who smells a rat is mostly played for laughs. There's also enough action here to please a mainstream audience.

While the faking of an entire space mission fails to be convincing, (there are simply too many loopholes), what remains chilling are the lengths the government will go to in hushing it all up. Everyone is expendable. The inspired use of two impersonal helicopters, seemingly communicating like airborne robots, symbolises a military organisation with a mission to eradicate all remaining clues. One character completely disappears with a believable, elaborate cover-up to replace any memories that he ever lived in his apartment.

Having grown up with the Moon missions live on TV, the idea of it all being faked is a non-starter for me. As a family, we visited Cape Kennedy (as it was called in 1973) and again, renamed as Cape Canaveral, in 1978 (ironically on the same holiday I first saw Capricorn One in a Miami theater). I remember the scene in the film, a long trackback that revealed the surface of Mars as a movie set, getting laughs in the cinema. It's a neat idea for a conspiracy thriller and a welcome change from the Kennedy-assassination plots, but even back then it was ludicrous.

While a silly runaway car stunt now fails to excite, mainly due to the amount of sped-up footage, the high speed aerial chase is one of the best there is. A dizzying helicopter pursuit, brilliantly photographed with superb stunt-flying. In the cinema you could easily feel airsick as the aircraft dive over the edges of the canyons. Jerry Goldsmith's pounding score is one of my favourite movie soundtracks. His music easily makes the action twice as dramatic.

I was wary of characters played by Hal Holbrook after this film. Here he's a bare-faced liar who still wants to be your friend and, dammit, I trusted him.

James Brolin, back when he headlined movies (Westworld, The Car, The Amityville Horror), is great - he looks like an astronaut. But so do Sam Waterston and O.J. Simpson. The cast is almost too good, Karen Black and Telly Savalas deserve bigger roles than very funny cameos. Brenda Vaccaro (Death Weekend, Airport '77) is excellent as an astronaut's wife being kept in the dark, giving even her quietest scenes an edge.

I thought I'd be in safe hands with director Peter Hyams after this film and Outland (1981), but his subsequent thrillers and sci-fis have disappointed, though I know The Relic, End Of Days and Timecop have their fans. I remember enjoying the Sean Connery thriller The Presidio and I'm going to give the 2001: A Space Odyssey sequel, 2010, another look.

Capricorn One should be one of those solidly entertaining movies that's always in print. But it's 1998 DVD incarnation (pictured) showed desperate need for remastering - a distracting amount of much film weave and neg faults, too tightly cropped on all sides. The recent UK blu-ray look much the same as the 1998 release, with a careless amount of compression faults presumably being triggered by an old film-to-tape transfer. At least the blu-ray is anamorphic widescreen, but it's not even a good enough transfer for a DVD.

Hopefully the US Special Edition DVD of 2008 looks better. Which would make it a quadruple dip for me...

Snappy TV trailer here on YouTube - no spoilers (note that the film is actually 2.35 widescreen)...

April 19, 2011

I was very sad to hear yesterday that actor Michael Sarrazin passed away, aged 70, after a brief illness. He had a face you don't forget easily. But his good looks and huge eyes were backed by talent. His versatility as an actor meant he could carry all types of movies - romantic, horror, comedy...

After memorable roles such as The Flim-Flam Man, Eye Of The Cat, the young actor ended the 1960s starring in the superb Oscar-winning They Shoot Horses, Don't They? This is his most-acclaimed film. But while he's top-billed opposite Jane Fonda, the story is an ensemble piece with a strong cast playing the many hopeful marathon dancers trying to keep standing long enough to win the prize money. A cruel way to earn a crust in depression-era America, the movie was actually shot in a ballroom where these actual spectacles took place. I was shocked to learn that Dracula-director Tod Browning used to live in Venice Beach and came to watch some of them on the pier. He wanted to film the story when it was published in 1935.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is the best way to remember Sarrazin, but I've always been intrigued by his sci-fi/horror films, a steady vein throughout his career. I've already mentioned Eye Of The Cat - a superb horror/thriller scripted by Joseph Stefano (Psycho) where he plays a character paralysed by a fear of cats. His performance made me wary of them for years! He also displays a mischievous and wicked sense of humour, as well as effortless sexuality in clinches with Gayle Hunnicutt. Interesting that the brief LA Times obituary mentions that he narrowly lost out on the role of Joe Buck in Midnight Cowboy, which would surely have propelled him into bigger projects.

His good looks also extended to regularly being half-naked in many roles, at a time when leading men didn't always look good with their shirts off (sorry, Mr Heston). He was ideal for the doctor's beautiful creation in Frankenstein: The True Story. It was also rare to see the creature look like a perfect human specimen (as in the book) rather than a monster. This was before The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The two-part TV movie caused quite a stir at the time, though I don't think it's aged well, just like this Frankenstein's pet project. This tribute from the Frankensteinia blog likes it a whole lot more.

Horses set Sarrazin up for continual but not stellar success through the 1970s. From light comedy, opposite Barbra Streisand in For Pete's Sake (an attempt to recreate the success of What's Up, Doc?), to weird thriller The Groundstar Conspiracy.

Sarrazin's character is an enigma, almost blown to smithereens in the opening scene. Like Who? and The Man Who Fell To Earth, the story is about proving whether he's a lab assistant, a saboteur or a even an alien... An intriguing curio which I return to because I keep forgetting the solution. There's nothing in it as eye-opening as the premise or the gory paperback cover.

The Gumball Rally was and is one of his most popular films, but again he's getting lost in an ensemble. Following Death Race 2000, there was a road rash of trans-continental race movies, inspired by an actual, illegal event (the only way to win was to break the speed limits). Gumball is far funnier than its 1976 rival Cannonball (also known as Carquake) but was completely overtaken by The Cannonball Run movies (1981, 1984), which needed a truckload of extra star power in order to inject fresh fuel into a treadbare format. A bunch of wacky characters, endless stuntwork, road movies lite.

But while Sarrazin gets lost in the mayhem, he was the main event in The Reincarnation Of Peter Proud, which I still really like. While the central mystery can easily be solved by reading the title, it's quite a hypnotic film, helped hugely by Jerry Goldsmith's soundtrack. We sympathise with Peter's plight when he realises that stuff in his dreams actually exists. The plot thickens when he stumbles into a passionate relationship during his quest for the truth. Once again, Sarrazin plays a lost soul searching for his identity.The eighties saw him depend on TV, including frequent sci-fi roles (The Outer Limits, Deep Space Nine) and it was a long time before I saw him again in anything, in the later Harry Palmer movies Bullet To Beijing and Midnight In Saint Petersburg, opposite Michael Caine. His last movie was a horror, FearDotCom.

I'm so sorry to hear that he's gone now. And sad that some of his more interesting films are so hard to see - The Groundstar Conspiracy is long out of print on DVD. Eye Of The Cat and The Reincarnation Of Peter Proud have never been on DVD.

April 14, 2011

The System Of Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether by Edgar Allan Poe Feathertop by Nathaniel Hawthorne The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux The Magician by Somerset Maugham Spurs by Tod Robbins The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell Dracula’s Guest by Bram Stoker The Devil And Daniel Webster by Steven Vincent Benet

Novels that inspire horror movies are easy to find, but short stories might need more detective work. They might only be found in old anthologies or even magazines. So when I saw these two paperbacks, I pounced on them! The Ghouls: Books One and Two were edited by Peter Haining, with nine short stories in each, every one used as source material for a horror film.

I bought these paperbacks just after they were published in 1974 (previously available as a single hardback). All I know is that they were sold in the UK and US, and reprinted in the UK in 1994. Such a brilliant theme for a collection, I'm surprised that there haven't been many more.

As a tribute to a great idea, here's an over-ambitiously long article that took months to put together - I've read all the stories again and watched as many of the movies they inspired as was possible. While I'd disagree that all the films are 'horror classics', I've been led to some great films that I'd not seen before.

Haining's introduction, as well as the foreword and afterword from genre giants, Vincent Price and Christopher Lee respectively, contain insightful notes on the genre.

So here's a look at the films and stories of Book One, a second article on Book Two will follow...

Foreword by Peter Haining

Haining makes a case for a place in the world for horror films and novels, at a time when gory or scary films were still widely being dismissed by critics and scholars alike. He originally chose these tales to illustrate how fiction has inspired horror films through the years, from the very first decade of cinema.

His introductions to each story reminded me of the state of the genre back then. For instance he remarks that Freaks "was the most horrific film ever made" and that The Magician was a "missing" film. Thankfully, far more horrific films have been made since 1974, and The Magician is no longer lost. In fact, it's just hit DVD.

THE DEVIL IN A CONVENT

(1896, France)

Based on The Devil In A Nunnery, a Medieval tale retold by Francis Oscar Mann.

This ancient story tells of the devil tricking his way into a convent by posing as a troubadour. As he sings to the nuns, they start behaving completely out of character. There's a sense that the author is hinting about a multitude of sins without getting into trouble for naming them explicitly.

This premise became one of the short (just three minutes long) frantic films created by French pioneer and genius Georges Méliès in the first few years of cinema. Well ahead of Hollywood tradition, Méliès completely rewrote the story by having the devil pose as an old priest - a far more wicked disguise.

While the story depends on wordplay, this short silent film visually riffs on the mayhem that a pantomime demon could wreak in a church - summoning little devils and monstrous animals. Mischievous fun rather than anything too blasphemous, the film has a single camera angle but a constantly evolving set powered by trap doors, puffs of smoke and his trademark in-camera editing. Hardly a horror classic, but a gracious nod to cinema's first studio of the fantastic.

Thanks to the wonderful DVD boxed set of practically all of Méliès' existing works, I was able to see this. It's also on YouTube. I'm not sure the next film still exists though...

THE LUNATICS

(1913, USA)

Based on The System Of Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether (1845) by Edgar Allan Poe.

Who else would early film-makers turn to for bizarre and scary ideas?

Two rambling holidaymakers are shown around a 'lunatic asylum' which is trying out a variety of unusual new treatments. On the tour, as they meet a variety of inmates, they're unaware of one of the most drastic cures on offer there...

This lesser-known tale from Poe is more of a comic twist than a descent into horror, though the premise has often been used in far more ghastly 'madhouse' movies, such as Ghost Story and Asylum. The slim short story would have been ideal as a short film, which lasted only 15 minutes. Incidentally, it was directed by Maurice Tourneur, father of Cat People and Night of the Demon director, Jacques.

The story was again officially adapted in Mexico as The Mansion of Madness (1973), directed by Juan López Moctezuma (Alucarda).

PURITAN PASSIONS

(1923, USA, also called The Scarecrow)

Based on Feathertop (1852) by Nathaniel Hawthorne.

From the author of The Scarlet Letter, is this dark fairy-tale of a New England witch who brings her scarecrow to life, looking like a human being. She then fixes on the idea that her scarecrow should find love, (a contrivance to set up this story of fateful romance).

While the premise of a living scarecrow is more usually horror nowadays, this tale (and The Wizard of Oz) present him as a friendly fantasy, despite the use of witchcraft.I couldn't find any silent version of this, I'm not even sure if the early films (also 1912, 1916) still exist. A Broadway stage adaption, filmed for TV in 1972, had very poor reviews, despite having Gene Wilder as Feathertop himself.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA(1925, 1929, USA)

Based on the 1909 novel by Gaston Leroux.

At this point Haining cheats a little, presenting a specially abridged version of Gaston Leroux' book. But this is a good way to enjoy the story and avoid the overlong sub-plots of opera house politics and romantic rivalry. This condensed version seems to have been trimmed to give us the passages that were translated to the screen for Lon Chaney's brilliant work. Conversely, this silent 1925 adaption (slightly reworked for sound in 1929) is a quite faithful adaption of events in the novel, apart from the completely revamped ending.

A ghost is said to haunt the Paris Opera House. A string of accidents force the directors to reconsider their choice of lead singer in their prestigious productions. Letters from 'The Phantom' threaten them to comply, or great tragedy will befall them...

I enjoy this movie version the most with its focus on The Phantom as the central character and the extensive use of gothic atmosphere in, well, everything - the cavernous sets and production design, the lighting, even the angry mob with torches. It's a horror epic.Lon Chaney's Phantom is the most famous of his extreme make-ups and the movie is required viewing as America's first landmark horror film. The restorations available on DVD include the early two-strip Technicolor sequences that treat us to The Phantom in eerie colour.Leroux' story is now well known, though most subsequent adaptions diminish the severity of the horror content compared to the first, silent adaption.

THE MAGICIAN (1926, USA)

Based on the 1908 novel by Somerset Maugham.

Haining cheats again by offering just an extract from a novel. He chose the passage describing the hypnotised heroine's dream of Hell, which became the film's delirious highlight.

Maugham is a celebrated author in Britain and many of his stories have been adapted as movies through the years (most recently The Painted Veil with Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) but at their most popular in the 1940s. Most of his novels were dramas, but The Magician was a dark fantasy focussed on a caricature of occultist Aleister Crowley, reimagined as the bragging Oliver Haddo, who might actually have discovered the mastery of dark powers. The silent adaption is faithful to the story and characterisations of the novel, right down to the French locations, though it adds a dramatic subplot to open the film.Warner Archive have just released this influential silent horror. I was excited to see Germany's horror star Paul Wegener (The Golem, Alraune, Svengali, The Student of Prague) in his only American film. This was easy casting to arrange because director Rex Ingram shot the film entirely in France, boasting many actual locations. It was obviously easy for a German actor to appear in a Hollywood film when they were silent.

At the time, any news of Crowley was usually scandalous (he was still alive), possibly enough to damage the film's chances - it didn't do well. But Ingram implies much more than he shows, and also adds tongue-in-cheek humour to the melodrama. There's a wonderful moment when Wegener exaggerates his character's exit with a superbly haughty throw of his cloak over the shoulder.A hunchback dwarf in a mountain-top tower housing a huge laboratory is intended as a ridiculous egocentric overly-dramatic setting. It manages to satirise Frankenstein five years before it was made. All that's missing is the flashy flashing electrical equipment. The scene in Hell is more serious and more sexual, a visually different depiction to Hollywood's usual reliance on Dante.As well as pre-dating Frankenstein, suffering censorship problems with the subject of satanism, the story also veers into the world of Svengali, who Wegener portrayed the following year. Much of Haddo's success is due to his powers of hypnotism.

It's a fascinating and influential silent movie, beautifully made. If only it had been more successful in America, Paul Wegener and his early achievements as an actor might be more widely known, rather than just as the big guy who played the hulking Golem...

FREAKS (1933, USA)

Based on Spurs (1923) by Tod Robbins.

Director Tod Browning chose this story to continue his love affair with circus life and trump the horror of Dracula (1931) more thoroughly than the studio actually wanted.

The short story Spurs provided the premise of the plot. A beautiful horse rider in love with a strong man laughs off the affections of a dwarf until he inherits a fortune from his uncle. She decides to marry for money, then murder him. The outcome of the story is very different to the film - brutal, sadistic and involves a pair of spurs...

The little person of the story is far from the helpless and sympathetic character of the film. He's a suspicious dwarf who has the upper hand because of a huge, fierce dog under his command. Author Tod Robbins earlier wrote The Unholy Three (in 1917) which Tod Browning had adapted as a silent film (in 1925) starring Lon Chaney. It was remade as a talkie (in 1930) and proved to be Chaney's last film.

Despite the parade of real-life physical abnormality in TV documentaries, this 1933 film still has the power to unsettle and shock, mainly due to the extreme nature of the circus people's disabilities and the lack of medical and public understanding they must have endured. While Browning had a circus background to draw on for realism and inspiration, his portrayal of the 'freaks' is two-faced, inspiring much criticism and censorship through the decades. Though they are sympathetically portrayed through much of the film, Browning switches to using them to prey on our fears, as scary monsters in the nightmarish climax.

But this would prove to be the only portrayal of many extreme physical disabilities for several decades and the largely positive portrayal was contrary to the regular movie rules that disfigurement equated with evil - scars or eyes/limbs missing visually meant that they were bad guys. Speaking of scars, Count Zaroff has a corker...

THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME(1933, USA)

Based on The Most Dangerous Game (1924) by Richard Connell.

A classic and often reused story - a hunter who likes to hunt... humans. A simple short story that quickly unfolds as a shipwreck survivor learns that his ship was wrecked deliberately. Anyone left alive provides quarry for a mad huntsman living in an island fortress, from which there's no escape.

The story features a single (first-person) protagonist in a prolonged battle with Zaroff. The film would add a gradual realisation of the survivors' plight, a love interest and a nasty trophy room...

The first and best movie adaption also re-used the sets of King Kong (1933), with many of the same cast and crew (while the extensive animation was being finished). It's fun to see Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong together again, with Fay running across Skull Island's famous log bridge, but being chased by Count Zaroff and his pack of hell hounds. It's my favourite of the many versions because it's the purest telling of the tale - there are no subplots or mucking about - we're on the island the whole time. The film is almost too short, barely over an hour.

I also like this as a flipside of Kong's world. As if they got rid of the giant gorilla and made a prototype Battle Royale instead. For its age, it's still exciting and even brutal, though most of the explicit violence was toned down (cracking of bones removed from the soundtrack, torture and mutilation cut completely out).

This is the greatest character that Leslie Banks (Went The Day Well?) played -the insane Zaroff, with Joel McCrea (the star of Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent) and Fay Wray looking bedraggled, but gorgeous, even after dragging themselves through a swamp.

DRACULA'S DAUGHTER

(1936, USA)

Based on Dracula’s Guest (1897) by Bram Stoker.

This was first published in 1914, but was written in 1897 as the opening chapter of Stoker's most famous novel Dracula. It describes how Jonathan Harker encounters the weird and uncanny before he even reaches Castle Dracula.

It's hard to see exactly how this became the inspiration for Dracula's Daughter, only one late scene in the film bears any relation to the story. Presumably publicity was trying to hype up as many links as possible between the first ever Dracula sequel and the literary prequel.

Dracula's Daughter is an early good example of a horror sequel. The story continues directly on from the end of Dracula (1931) with Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan again) being arrested for murdering the Count! Meanwhile a mysterious hooded woman spirits away the corpse (a rather obvious dummy substituting for Lugosi) but continuing his work in obtaining involuntary blood donations. Like her father, she is also very interested in female victims...

This is a very good Universal horror, but would've been even better if it hadn't been restricted by new censorship rules for horror films. The gothic mood is constantly interrupted by bursts of comic relief, mostly provided by an unlucky policeman (silent comedy star Billy Bevan). But Gloria Holden is extraordinary and ethereal and her duel of wits with the living is more effectively dramatic than the staginess of Dracula.

THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER(1944, USA, also called All That Money Can Buy)

Based on The Devil And Daniel Webster (1937) by Steven Vincent Benet.

This story is in itself an adaption of a tale as old as the hills. A variation of the Faust legend given an American mid-19th century setting. Whenever you get a wish, there's always a catch. The film was famously referenced in The Simpsons' very first Treehouse of Horror, which is a good taster for the finale - a courtroom drama staged by the Devil himself.

A young farmer, Jabez Stone, struggling to raise a family, curses his luck and swears that he'd do anything to improve his life. Out of nowhere, a stranger helps change his fortunes for the next seven years, in return for a small consideration, his soul.

It helps if you know a little early American history (gulp), in particular Daniel Webster. Here he's a popular politician dedicated to helping the farmers. Luckily for Jabez Stone, he's also a great lawyer. In reality, Webster also ran for President no less than three times.

The story decribes many of Webster's achievements without detailing them. So all the dialogue for the famous legal scene had to be written from scratch.

The lighting in this film is extraordinary. It noticeably and literally adds shades to the performances, and transforms simple sets into frightening tableaux. The Devil, though he's never actually named, arrives through a barn door - doesn't sound like much - but the lighting makes it startling. It reminded me of the appearance of a demon, the highlight of the bonkers Esperanto Incubus (1966).

With Bernard Herrmann composing the music, sharp black and white cinematography, and ironic dialogue unafraid to highlight inhumanity and injustice, the film looks like a pilot movie for The Twilight Zone, but fourteen years early. As Jabez Stone gets closer to his fate, the denizens of Hell come up and meet him. These shadowy glimpses of half-seen apparitions are still scary.

Until I'd re-read The Ghouls for this article, I'd barely heard of this film, though I now realise its credentials are close to legendary, being produced at RKO Studios the same year as Citizen Kane, sharing some of the same production crew, like the composer (Herrmann) and editor (Robert Wise).

Walter Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, And Then There Were None) plays 'Mr Scratch', constantly reminding me of his son, John (actor - Myra Breckinridge, director - The African Queen, The Maltese Falcon) who I've enjoyed in many films. John handled cigars just like his dad. Walter's performance is outstanding though subtle - I don't think he raises his voice throughout the film. This lack of threat enables him to gain friends and allies and then betray their trust...

I was delighted to see Simone Simon co-star as a mysterious temptress. The following year she'd of course take the lead in the first of two RKO horror films as Irena, one of The Cat People. Val Lewton's films had to be low-budget because of RKO's losses from Citizen Kane. Their loss, our gain. Simon plays Belle, a French nanny who casually appears out of nowhere...

The production design is ambitious and successful, portraying very similar situations to Days of Heaven but entirely on a soundstage. Director William Dieterle later directed the great version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1939.

A supernatural fantasy hinting at the horrors of damnation, this is a superb movie.

The Ghouls was first published as a single hardcover by W. H. Allen in 1971, then as two paperbacks from Orbit in 1974. I've always thought that the cover needed a stronger hint that these stories were connected to films - perhaps using photographs. I've changed my mind after seeing the US paperback edition (above).

April 02, 2011

In 2006 we visited Sorrento, near Naples in Southern Italy. We stared into the mouth of Vesuvius and visited the well-preserved city of Pompeii. In 79 A.D. volcanic ash buried the city in a cataclysmic eruption. Walking around the streets and buildings, the preserved shells of fallen bodies brought home the scale of the ancient tragedy as if it were yesterday.

While visiting the ruined city of Paestum on another excursion, I got the feeling it had been used as a filming location in Ray Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts. In the scene where Phileas (Patrick Troughton) is tormented by two harpies sent by Zeus. Jason and his Argonauts arrive to talk to Phileas, who will only help if they stop the harpies from stealing his food.

I'd not expected to run into this movie location and hadn't prepared at all - normally I'd watch the film beforehand for clues. Because the scene was vague in my memory and I was only working on a hunch, I only got the details right after the visit. On the day, I decided on completely the wrong temple! The information at the site didn't mention anything about it.

Paestum used to be a Greek settlement, named after the god of the sea, Poseidon. Incredibly the layout of the city is still easy to seen, as well as many remaining structures (like a small colliseum) and three well-preserved temples that are still standing. Some of the best examples anywhere, even in Greece. The original architects had even built in various earthquake-defying features, enabling a film crew to run around on top of it 2,500 years later!

Out of the three temples at Paestum, the one on a slight hill - the solitary Temple of Athena (or Ceres) - looked possible, but I'd guessed wrong. Note that it only has six end columns.

At the other end of this World Heritage Site, furthest from the site entrance, are two temples standing side by side - the Temple of Poseidon (or Neptune) and the Temple of Hera (also called The Basilica).

The Temple of Poseidon (on the right) is the more impressive, as it's more complete than the older temple behind it. But it's the Temple of Hera (on the left) that was used in the film. The above two photos are taken from the backs of the temples, from the east. But the filming was either done inside or from front...

These two shots (above) show the front of the temple from the west, before and after they erected a fence that keeps the visitors out.

The Temple of Hera has nine end columns, seen here in the film. But I didn't pay it much attention on the day we visited, because it stands so close to the Temple of Poseidon - I always thought of it being isolated in the film - but in several scenes you can see the neighbouring temple in the background (below)...

Also visible in the background of some shots are mountains, which indicates that the west end of the temple was used for filming. While it's not actually on the coast (the scene of Jason's arrival was faked with a trick of editing), in terms of realism, Jason and his men still arrive at the temple from the direction of the coast.

This overhead shot shows the Temple of Hera (on the left) with the sea in the distance. In 550 BC, the coast would have been closer.

This location is also used earlier in Jason and the Argonauts. Harryhausen recreated the interior of Poseidon's temple for the opening scene where Jason's mother is murdered. In the film it’s a set, but the original building where those events took place were in that temple next door!

This view looking north shows the ground in front of the Temple of Hera where the film first shows Phileas at a table when the harpies attack. The Temple of Poseidon is behind it. The stone dining table and the fallen columns outside must all have been props.All three temples at Paestum are missing their roofs. The Temple of Hera is the only one also missing the arched decorative roof supports at the front and back, leaving a completely flat surface for Argonauts to run all around the top - making this temple the best of the three for catching harpies...

The columns were all about thirty feet high, making it very dangerous for the stuntmen running around with the Harpie nets.

The wide flat tops of the columns match the close-ups in the film.

Some of the filming took place inside the temple. Note the remaining columns inside the structure - they're also visible in this modern view (below) looking inside the temple from the front, towards the mountains.

It’s hard for me to precisely explain the fun of visiting old movie locations. But they're the only physic remnants that remain of many movies.We'd visited Paestum to see ancient temples, which was exciting enough. But it turned out we'd also seen an actual ‘set’ from Jason and the Argonauts, whichis very exciting. Especially since it looks much the same as it did in 1963. In contrast, some of the locations for the legendary skeleton fight, like the cliff where Jason jumps, are nowunderneath multi-storey hotels.